As we settle in for 63 minutes of ancient astronaut zaniness, I want to call your attention to the happy news that American Antiquity has made its special section of reviews of pseudoarchaeology books from its July 2015 issue available for free, with no membership or subscription fee required. These reviews, by leading scholars, explore topics ranging from lost civilizations to Nephilim-giants through an examination of works by leading fringe theorists like Graham Hancock and Andrew Collins, both of whom have appeared on Ancient Aliens. You can download your own copy here to enjoy, probably much more that you enjoyed tonight’s slipshod, recycled discussion of “Alien Evolution” (S08E05).

Segment 1 We open with the elongated skulls of Paracas, Peru, (particularly skull 44 at the private, fringe history Paracas History Museum) which conventional science attribute to head-binding. The show repeats claims made last year on In Search of Aliens S01E09 and again on Ancient Aliens S07E10 about the lack of a sagittal suture on one of these skulls, a very rare but not unheard of trait. The show tells us that ancient astronaut theorists think people bound heads to imitate the shape of aliens’ skulls, but Brien Foerster disagrees. He feels that the elongation is the result of natural processes that occurred due to the hybrid nature of the people, who carry what he feels are unknown types of DNA. As discussed last year, the DNA results—conducted at the behest of Foerster and Lloyd Pye—were ambiguous and controversial, and Foerster chose to interpret it as proof of a lost species of human. (In 2013, he first claimed the DNA showed they were Aryans from Europe.) David Wilcock and Giorgio Tsoukalos disagree, though, and believe that the unknown DNA belongs to space aliens, specifically the “Teachers” (i.e. the Watchers). After this, we discuss the Neanderthals and the Denisovans and other competing species of hominin. David Wilcock calls it a “Lord of the Rings type situation” where many types of human lived on earth simultaneously, and he claims Denisovan DNA has no clear antecedent to show us where they came from. In a roundabout way, he’s referring to the fact that Denisovan mitochondrial DNA (which is not the same as their nuclear DNA) is different from humans or Neanderthals (their closest relatives), indicating their matrilineal line comes from a different branch of the human family tree. Instead, he implies a deeper mystery than exists.

Segment 2 In this segment, an artist reconstructs Paracas Skull 44 with the help of computer technology while Brien Foerster looks on in awe. Foerster declares the face to be “atypical” of native Peruvians seen in the region today, though that doesn’t mean much since modern Peruvians are a mixture of ancient Peruvians and Spaniards. Foerster declares the skull a “subspecies,” while the narrator speculates whether it was an alien hybrid or a real alien. The show replays footage from In Search of Aliens S01E09 as Tsoukalos goes beyond his comments in that episode to declare Paracas Skull 44 a genuine extraterrestrial skull. The narrator tells us that the reconstructed face of the Paracas skull bears a close resemblance to Akhenaten, the Egyptian pharaoh ancient astronaut theorists have long suspected (and endlessly proclaim) to be a space alien hybrid. David Childress adds that the Aten sun disk Akhenaten worshiped was a UFO, and Akhenaten was perhaps a Grey alien hybrid. David Wilcock claims to be able to deduce alien features from Akhenaten’s statues, which he considers perfect representations of reality, claiming that even busts of Tutankhamun show an elongated skull. He seems unaware that the actual skull of Tutankhamun does not match the artistic representation, which was a weird but largely fictional convention of the Amarna court. Apparently, in life Tutankhamun did not have a skull anywhere near as elongated as his bust.

Bust of Tut with elongated skull.

Actual head of King Tut

Segment 3 A man was born with a reptilian heart, a rare birth defect due to atavism, and the narrator marvels that humans with birth defects show a “link” to the “reptiles”; however, since this is Ancient Aliens, the show doubts that Darwinian evolution is real. Instead, they claim that these atavistic traits are actually Reptilian alien DNA. Evidence of this, they say, can be found in the story of China’s first emperor, Fu Xi, who had a snake tail, and other myths of beings with serpentine tails instead of legs. (Fu Xi was the first of the Three Sovereigns, and one of the creator demigods of Chinese myth.) David Childress calls them extraterrestrials but does not explain how they traversed space and time without legs or hips, which would seemingly make it difficult to stand up to perform tasks. Naturally, this brings us back to the Watchers, because the Bible is the key to history, and therefore the Sons of God sexing up the daughters of men in Genesis 6:4 proves that aliens hybridized us. Jason Martell agrees, and it’s interesting that he has new, puffed-out brown hair this season, perhaps because he got tired of being mistaken for Rick Santorum with his old short, black haircut.

Segment 4 This segment starts with a 1952 UFO report from West Virginia—the Flatwoods Monster, a creature very similar to the legendary Mothman encounter, which as most readers of this review already know, Joe Nickell long ago demonstrated convincingly was an owl, probably sitting on a stump. This fellow may well have been, too. Other bird-monsters of folklore such as the Apache Owl Man are discussed, and the show compares these to Thoth, the ibis-headed god of the Egyptians. All shamanic animal-human hybrid stories are taken to be literal depictions of animalistic aliens or some combination of animal, human, and alien hybrids. Earth was apparently lousy with these monsters, which nevertheless miraculously left nary a bone much less a sample of DNA for all their thousands upon thousands of bodies. To make this seem plausible, the shows suggest that other stars follow other evolutionary rules, which might create monsters that we cannot recognize and can only compare to parts of know animals. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s the way H. P. Lovecraft conceptualized his aliens, including Cthulhu, whose unfamiliar form conjured “simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature.” Oops… I guess Ancient Aliens just “proved” that Cthulhu is real, or at least as real as Thoth.

Segment 5 As the segment begins, we hear that the UFO Congress held this year included a forum where various people talked about their alien abductions. Nick Redfern classifies the abductors as Reptilians, Insectoids, Batmen, and other fictitious projections of animals into human fantasy, though of course he thinks they’re all real. Wilcock says there is a 1:1 correlation between modern sightings and ancient depictions of the gods. Wilcock says this proves all the creatures are real, though it equally well (and more likely) proves that the human brain produces the same hallucinations the world over, across time and space, when in altered states of consciousness. Thus, the shamanic ancestors, the animal-headed gods, and space aliens are humanoids with animal characteristics (therianthropy). David Childress, though, believes humans are very special, and our form is “universal.” Redfern says that this isn’t the case but instead humanoids were the oldest aliens, a culture that seeded the universe with humanoid DNA. This is a version of panspermia, and it suggests a teleological view that our DNA is striving toward a type of Platonic perfection rather than responding to natural selection. It allows its believers to accept (some of) modern science while still believing in a quasi-divine creation and purpose.

Segment 6 The final segment begins by discussing speculation in Forbes magazine that over the next 100,000 years human heads may grow larger, with bigger eyes and darker skin. They also note reports that over the past century the human skull has, on average, gotten a bit larger, resulting in a bigger brain. (The cause is unknown and may be related to nutrition and lifestyle.) I suppose it’s progress that the show seems to accept that human beings have evolved and that natural and cultural selection pressures were responsible for these changes. But then we take a step back when Wilcock tells us we’re becoming naturally elongated (the real change is 8 mm—resulting in an increase in brain size of about the size of a tennis ball, an analogy Wilcock reads verbatim from here or a similar article as though it were his own thought), while others say that the Greys got their big skulls because microgravity let their heads blow up like balloons since evolution wouldn’t need to worry about supporting bigger brains. The show then undermines the beginning of the segment, and most of its logic, by having the narrator ask us if all of this suggests we are in fact descendants of the Grey aliens.

*sighs* Why can't Vice replace History channel as well so that this recycled crap can go away for good? Do people even realize that these are the same talking points that have been used a hundred times already? Or are they really this stupid now?

Reply

Cire

8/21/2015 05:50:25 pm

I've argued with Pye in a different forum about a couple of the "Alien skulls/mummies". Outside of head binding, a couple of the mummies exhibit clear signs of craniosynostosis. The tell is the gap or hole where the frontal and coronal sutures should meet but do not. The elongation of the parietal eminence and large eyes (appearance) is another dead give away. It effects 1 in 2000, but can be more prevalent in populations that practice familial interbreeding. Pye and Foerster, of course, refuse to believe in common genetic abnormalities. Superstition for profit is more fun...

Feel free to google MRI images of craniosynostosis for a comparison.

Reply

Scarecrow

8/22/2015 08:15:21 am

The Sirius Mystery was laid to rest on a BBC documentary during the 1970s shortly after the publication of R K G Temple's book. Nobody wants to repeat that.

Reply

Frank Quincy

9/12/2015 05:22:49 pm

Although I agree that History channel is rarely about history, and that they replay the same tired crap over and over. Vice is hardly better. They repeat the same assertions seen on most Lamestream news stations only packaged to look edgy and rebellious. Follow the money, Shane Smith's background says it all.

Reply

Pam

8/21/2015 05:48:35 pm

Re: fringe theorists book reviews

It was great to see some rebuttal of the fringe writer's books (at last) by practicing archeologists. It was especially great to see Jason and his work referenced in two of the reviews for further reading about the flawed theories presented by the alternative history /archeology /ancient astronaut crowd.

Reply

Cire

8/21/2015 06:07:14 pm

I should also add that skull 44 is a clear example of cranial binding. The flattened and vertical growth of the frontal and parietal eminences would be clear to any non biased anthropologist. This can, depending on age at which the process was started, can account for the increased size of the orbital cavities.

Reply

Only Me

8/21/2015 07:46:24 pm

This episode was painful to watch. When Tsoukalos talked about the comparison of skulls known to be shaped through head binding, and how they were different from skull 44, I couldn't believe anyone could be that purposefully stupid. What, different cultures practicing head binding can't have different techniques to shape the skull to their preference?

I'm glad Jason included a picture of Tutankhamun's mummy for comparison to his bust. This is another example of the fringe taking stylized art literally, even though the actual mummies of the people depicted in the art shows clearly they weren't giants nor had such exaggerated features.

And, of course, Brian "Fuck your culture" Foerster had to declare the facial reconstruction of skull 44 depicted a "sub-species" of human in an effort to convince the gullible he's smart.

As to Redfern talking about humanoids seeding DNA throughout the universe, this has already been reflected in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Chase". In the episode summary on Wikipedia, it states, "The crew eventually believe that they have discovered an embedded genetic pattern that is constant throughout many different species, and it is speculated that this was left by an early race that pre-dates all other known civilizations. This would ultimately explain why so many races are humanoid."

Reply

Shane Sullivan

8/22/2015 07:42:58 am

"What, different cultures practicing head binding can't have different techniques to shape the skull to their preference?"

Heck, if the the various head-binding cultures of the world all had the exact same methods and standards, it would be *more* likely that the practice was inherited from some lost civilization or alien race. The fact that they don't all do it the same way is just further indictment on this childish theory.

Reply

Only Me

8/22/2015 03:02:31 pm

"The fact that they don't all do it the same way is just further indictment on this childish theory."

That observation could also be applied to their claims of alien influence behind the world's megalithic sites.

Shane Sullivan

8/22/2015 06:26:26 pm

I'm sure they'll come up with some way to turn *that* into proof of alien contact, just like this.

"If they were all made by humans, they'd look exactly the same! Clearly Baalbek and the Pyramid of the Sun were each made by a different alien race!"

=P

Hugh

8/22/2015 12:14:41 am

Thanks for the review link. It is amazing how a scholarly work could begin by incorrectly citing the titles of many of the books/shows it claims to accurately review. Love it.

Reply

Scott Hamilton

8/22/2015 01:11:09 am

I see a couple trivial errors in the introduction, but nothing that makes any material difference. Who cares, beyond trolling sea lions?

Reply

Scott Hamilton

8/22/2015 01:24:23 am

Oh, and Hugh, you made an mistake there. The scholarly work doesn't claim to review any TV shows, only books. I'm sure you're mortified by the error and will apologize profusely at your first opportunity.

Reply

David Bradbury

8/22/2015 02:07:56 am

Although the American Antiquity item doesn't review TV shows as such, it does mention some, such as "American Unearthed" which sounds more like a Silent Witness episode.

spookyparadigm

8/22/2015 03:57:57 am

The reconstruction of Tutankhamun at the Field Museum is surprisingly cranially deformed.

http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7406/9474472533_3bd596a5c4.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7295/9474475191_20ac36d368_b.jpg

Also, if it is 1952, that would be the Flatwoods Monster, another glowing red eye beast of West Virginia that is beloved by ufologists. Nickell has argued they're all owls, but to be honest that's almost beside the point. Not only is it something of a fool's errand to try and parse out if an honest "eyewitness sighting" was this or that unless there is better evidence than a story (vs. a hoax or other deception which may leave other evidence), but the real interest is what happens to the story. A Mothman sighting is not that interesting. The mythology that builds around it is.

It calls "In Search of Aliens" in Search of Ancient Aliens on the first page and mentions several other tv shows. It's part of the introductory review. Plus gets book titles wrong. It shows rather well how scholars purport to tell facts but are sloppy. Such factual "errors" give a lot of fodder to the alternative theorists--who are accused of being sloppy. The individual reviews that follow don't really address specifics. It is what it is. The only total accuracy is that academics force their students and libraries to buy their own overpriced books. It is doubtful that anyone but interested readers buy the books of the authors they try to trash. The really stupid and ignorant readers are the students who have to buy what they are required to buy.

Reply

V

8/22/2015 12:55:58 pm

Would you please go away? Your ignorance might be contagious, but even if it isn't, you're ANNOYING. And hypocritical. You nitpick this blog--which is a BLOG, not a book and not a scholarly journal, and different standards apply to each--but you never say a single word about the blatant errors and even LIES that are spun by the fringey authors. Oh, but I forgot, you BELIEVE them, so of course nothing is a lie, but the slightest error that GETS CORRECTED in Jason's work somehow invalidates everything he has ever said in his life.

Go AWAY. Take your non-logic and your fanatical belief and peddle it elsewhere. No one here is buying. We're smart enough to avoid it.

Reply

Only Me

8/22/2015 02:57:07 pm

Hey, Hugh, where was your criticism of Graham Hancock when he misquoted part of Jason's biography in his latest book? Wasn't that proof of sloppiness?

Speaking of addressing specifics, why is it fringe authors/theorists never address specifics when others find fault in their work? Why must they always, like you, try to dismiss such criticism by any means necessary?

Reply

Clete

8/22/2015 06:11:28 am

Jason, thank you for the link to the American Antiquity reviews. I was impressed by the first section by Donald Holly where he wrote about the problem that professionals face when writing books. It not only applies to archaeology, but to most other academic fields. They usually write for other professionals or if teaching, for the captive audience of students enrolled in their classes. The general public is excluded and usually not interested. The writing tends, as a general rule, to be quite detailed, but dry. I have read some of these books, mainly in history and geology, and they are tough going. You can say one thing about the majority of fringe writers, since they are attempting to sell their books to the general public, they have to write in an interesting format. They need to grab their audience, realizing that the public who purchase their books will not be interested in documented facts, supported by evidence. I put them in the same field as authors who write fiction.

Reply

V

8/22/2015 12:57:47 pm

"I put them in the same field as authors who write fiction."

Please don't. Fiction writers don't deserve to be smeared with that horse shit. Besides, fiction writers are honest: they are writing things that are NOT THE TRUTH. Fringey types are liars and cheats. Put them in the same field as politicians, instead.

Reply

Shane Sullivan

8/22/2015 07:19:11 am

It looked like they recycled CGI footage from that special, 'Alien Planet', based on Wayne Barlow's 'Expedition'. Been a while since I've seen it, though, so I can't be sure.

Reply

Pam

8/22/2015 07:22:02 am

I have hope that academics, and archaeologists in particular, will find a way to address the false claims of the alternative crowd.

The public is obviously interested in how "primitive" man could have produced the stone structures that the AAT crowd is forever pointing to saying,"We can't build that today with our modern technology, therefore aliens/atlantians."

I know the information is available from websites like this one, as well as the traditional academic tomes. The problem is that, as several have already stated, the writing is often dry and too technical for the average consumer of the alternative "products".

I think it's important to at least make the effort to reach these people and I believe the American Antiquity article/reviews is a move in the right direction. They are acknowledging the problem. The academic community needs to at least try to engage the public and stop allowing the fringe to continue its garbage production unchallenged.

Reply

V

8/22/2015 01:05:08 pm

I've seen DOZENS of shows that give that information, including such crackpot shows as "Fact or Faked?" I'm pretty sure that a slight-framed woman "walking" a multi-ton concrete block with three hefty dudes, one being a pro wrestler, all by herself for several hundred yards is anything but dry. I think the problem is that people like this desperately WANT for it to have been aliens or Atlanteans or God or whatever, and they'll never believe that ANYTHING that says otherwise is true, not even seeing a demonstration in front of their own eyes.

Which, by the way, I have done--I once moved a 3-ton safe all the way around my house from the front yard where it was offloaded to the back yard where it was going into the house, by using two improvised pivots and a rope. Despite watching this in some awe, my neighbor just could not be convinced that people prior to the 20th century could possibly have thought to use a couple rocks and a rope to move large objects at all.

Reply

FrankenNewYork

8/22/2015 05:25:48 pm

If an increase of 8 mm in skull results in an increase in brain size of about the size of a tennis ball, that fills the added volume then there should be no surprise that an artificially heightened, elongated, skull has a much greater capacity than an unbound skull would have.

Reply

Uncle Ron

8/23/2015 12:39:43 pm

It doesn't work that way. Imagine a balloon which you are filling with a pre-determined volume of water. If you bind the middle it "elongates" but the volume of water hasn't changed. That's what happens as a brain grows to its genetically pre-determined size inside a bound skull.

Reply

David Bradbury

8/22/2015 08:55:38 pm

Article in today's Observer (Sunday sister to The Guardian) tackles the question of trustworthiness in mainstream science, and the need for a massive improvement to peer review:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/22/can-we-trust-science-academic-journal-peer-review-retraction-

Reply

Frank Quincy

9/12/2015 05:39:43 pm

Interesting article. It really highlights the weakness in the scientific community. I would disagree somewhat with the first sentence, for some science is a belief and they have great faith in it, their deity.

I fixed the link! Every once in a while one doesn't post right for some reason.

Reply

CHF01

8/23/2015 04:25:00 am

Does anyone know if DNA research has been conducted on any of the skulls in question? Wouldn't those tests prove/disprove things once and for all? If the tests conclude 100% homosapien, their claims of it being ET are over.

There are a number of issues involved. First, it's illegal to export human remains from Peru without official permission, but Foerster and Pye claim to have exported samples of the Paracas skull to the U.S. for testing. The results, to the best of my knowledge, were not shared in the form of raw data. Instead, Foerster has shared one interpretation after another, from Aryans to aliens to non-human sub-species, depending on his needs at any given time.

Reply

Dave

8/24/2015 06:24:02 am

They do the same thing with the so called "Star Child" skull.

Steve

8/23/2015 10:38:00 am

I know this is a minor question/quibble, but when I was in middle school I remember checking out this huge book on Ancient Egypt at a librart by some Egyptologist. In the book, the author insisted that the Aten was not a disc but in some depictions was a three dimensional object. But that many people misinterpreted Egyptian artwork and referred to the Aten as a disc. If I remember correctly the author's preferred terminology for the Aten was globe.

Does anybody know if this is true or not? I keep being reminded of it any time somebody refers to the disc of the Aten but I can't recall the name or author of a book from when I was that young.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

8/23/2015 01:27:52 pm

If you do a Google Books search for "Aten sphere," it turns up several books by Egyptologists that say it was actually a sphere. You get similar results using "globe," but not as many.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.